[Recovering_Democrat]

Restated again, just to make it crystal clear:

I'll just go ahead and trust the Museum of Natural History's publication, the title of the article "The Origins of Life" written by an evolutionist and the notation of all those published articles by evolutionists to help me understand what evolution theory purports.

When ideas are published by evolutionists in scientific publications trying to explain the origin of life, I'll use that as a measuring stick for a definition.

In other words, I'll trust the educated evolutionists to define their terms. Not yours.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'll just go ahead and trust the Museum of Natural History's publication, the title of the article "The Origins of Life" written by an evolutionist and the notation of all those published articles by evolutionists to help me understand what evolution theory purports."

Evolutionary theory doesn't include the origins of life, as your posts showed. Evolutionary theory cannot say anything about pre-life that is not an imperfect self-replicator.

"When ideas are published by evolutionists in scientific publications trying to explain the origin of life, I'll use that as a measuring stick for a definition."

Just because someone accepts evolution doesn't mean everything they study is evolutionary biology. The origins of life are not included in the ToE, and have never been.

"In other words, I'll trust the educated evolutionists to define their terms. Not yours."

They support my position, not yours.